He might at that, Alamo-Girl! Sir Isaac Newton termed it the sensorium Dei.... I find that particularly apt at the level of a quasi-physical description, for it is directly analogous to the idea of the universal Vacuum field. Plato's metaxy, on the other hand, seems to have more of a psychological than a physical resonance. For it refers to a psychic field "in-between" dimensions, in between matter and spirit; and the phenomena that take place "there" seem to result from the coupling of cosmic fields....
The collective consciousness is, i think, just as you describe it, A-G: "...not a person but an overarching 'force' or 'field' in the universe which causes it to become more than the sum of its parts." Perhaps a more detailed picture would show it as the collective of individual consciousnesses, interacting in some way with that "overarching field." It has been suggested e.g., by Sheldrake and Bohm too, as I recall, that this sort of thing is a two-way street. The evolving universe is evolving intelligence also as it goes along, and humans may have some kind of role in this process.
Then again, you can debase the whole idea of the collective consciousness by pointing to its more unsavory kin -- ideologies are a form of collective consciousness, too.
Been working pretty hard the past several days, so am just "coming up for air" here. Am calling it a day, but thought I'd look in here first. I am amazed that such a light-weight piece as Dawkin's has "inspired" a thread of this length....
Dawkins seems to have studied rhetoric with Saul Alinsky. I mean really, just try to analyze one single paragraph of this screed for its logical form. It virtually has none, it's all proselytization and abuse of his "enemies"... and kissy-kissy for his friends, e.g., Lewontin. Arrgghhhhh!!!!!!!
Anyhoot Alamo-Girl, your posts here have been wonderful and informative, as usual. Thank you oh so very much!!!
Not me. The first sentence drew me in: "Science feeds on mystery." To the extent Dawkins is willing to posit this, I am willing to grant him a say in science.
I pray things will be better paced for you this weekend and afterwards - you've been buried with work and could surely use a break, dear sister in Christ!
I read the Dawkins article, and while he may be speaking on target to some, he makes the mistake many do in lumping everyone he doesn't like into a single pile.
I don't know why it would offend a scientist that I believe in a Creator God. How did a weasel frog develop an elbow joint? He thinks that when I say "God did it" that it steals something away from science, or maybe from Dawkins himself. It does nothing of the sort. I still want to know "how", and I expect guys like Dawkins to get cracking figuring it out. In my Creationist ignorance, I believe that we were created for the purpose of joining in the creation, which means it is a critical part of our mission on this earth to reverse-engineer everything we see, so we can use it. For the glory of God, of course.
He seems to lump Intelligent Design with anyone who criticizes Darwin. But ID, as I understand it, basically presumes evolution, sees it as a process that can be harnessed like any other. That assumption gives heartburn to some of our creationist friends, but Dawkins argues right past ID, taking wild ad hominem swings at it that make little sense.
Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a “gap”, the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps!
Maybe, but I see it as fascinating, how the design has developed and "evolved". I don't have any fight to pick with the scientist who is trying to fill in the gap. I want to understand how the design changed from A to B to C. Dawkins thinks that if he shows how it happened, he has disproven God, he thinks faith in God is dependent on "mystery". He thinks that my faith requires the dark space between A and B to exist, and the moment he flips on the flashlight to show the machinery that links A to B, that God has been vanquished. It drives him nuts that we would look at the machinery, in awe at the ingeniousness of the design, in awe at how the design has advanced and changed, and praise God all the more.
Then we look at the next dark spot, wanting to know how that works, how God worked out that problem. He looks at the next dark spot, believing that once he reveals the belts and pulleys that God will be gone once and for all, and it never works. Because despite what he believes, faith in God is not at all dependent upon "mystery". It is a way of seeing what is known, and a way of dealing with what is not known.
I look at a car, and I know that there are some smart people at work in Detroit. Open up the hood, and show me how the pistons drive the crank, and I only marvel all the more, and yearn all the more to learn how to design engines, so that one day I can take my place at that drafting table in Detroit. Metaphorically speaking, of course.